rFactor 2 – Physics Behind The Scenes

Image Space Incorporated has released an interesting article, showing how the team acquires and works with real-life data as part of their physics development process:

How do we get shape and construction information of the car?
No two real-life race cars are built exactly the same, no matter how hard they try, so the best way to ensure an accurate simulation of all cars of that type, rather than one example car that could have fundamental differences to every other, is to go straight to the designer. By building cars for the software as they were intended to be built, you actually have a more realistic example of all the race cars of that type which were built, rather than one example of its differences.

The most simplistic method for building is from a designers blueprint drawing of four angles: Front, top, side and back. Everything is at the same scale, without perspective, and can be used as a background image of those angles during the modeling process. This is perhaps the least accurate of the methods we use, but is quite common for a lot of the older cars, which were designed and built before computers were widely used. When working from drawings, we often have to gain access to these cars to confirm some details. They often lack information on the internal workings of the car.

Similar to the example above, some modern car designers provide us with ‘digital blueprint’ files which have the cars in the form of vector shapes. Like the blueprint drawings, these have the same four angles shown, but can be zoomed in for greater accuracy during the model building process. For this example, and the one above, we build the model by tracing 2D shapes in a 3D space. While this can be very accurate, it relies heavily on the skill and patience of the person we have building it.

A standard vector blueprint layout.

The most accurate form of data, and the easiest to work with, is modern 3D data. This comes directly from the designer and allows us to trace the 3D shape in 3D space, giving amazing accuracy in our model when compared to the original design. A major benefit of 3D data is that it may include the internal portion of the car, and this ensures greater accuracy when developing physics. The 3D data we receive is often too high quality to be used in a retail software environment, and that is why we are still using it to trace the shapes for our own model.

3D Model of rear end, after using designer 3D Data.

How do we get data on vehicle physics and car setup?

With every car we build, we try to work with the designer or someone who had direct involvement with the car in a competitive environment. There is a lot of trust required from manufacturers and teams when sharing information, even when they are helping us with a car no longer in active competition.

The most common form of technical data we get is a ‘car manual’ from the manufacturer. These are the same manuals provided to racing team engineers to help them understand, setup and maintain the car they have purchased. In most cases these are quite detailed, but may lack important information that usually we can ask the manufacturer, or a team we have made contact with.

Data can sometimes be calculated using common sense. A crude example could be the exact weight of a brake disc, where if you know the material, you approximately know the density, and together with the dimensions you can approximately work out the volume, which allows you to calculate its mass and inertia.

Unfortunately, there are times when both the manufacturer and any teams using their vehicles are unable to help us. In those situations we can draw on experience we have building cars of similar construction, we can search in literature or archives (depending how old the car is), or we can use our own in-house physics simulator and design tools.

Our in-house physics development tool, which most PCs are not powerful enough to run.

The goal of a simulation is to simulate the real world as accurately as possible, our in-house tools help us check the data we are given is correct, and is how we plug any gaps in that data. We can run full physics simulations, and this allows us to complete both the most complex and simplistic tests we need to, all within real-world constraints.

In some cases the computations from our tools are too complicated to be run in real time on current home technology, but the attributes of vehicle dynamics are now fairly well understood, and anything that has a significant real world bearing must be simulated in some manner, even if it is using a simplified model (creating the same results) within retail software. As we go forward, and technology advances, those simplified models can become more and more advanced, and therein lies the benefit of ongoing software development over boxed products.

The most difficult data to acquire, is tire data. Many teams work under a non-disclosure agreement with tire manufacturers, and this means we occasionally have to purchase and test tires ourselves. We also use our own tools to verify any information we are given, or test various scenarios to build our own data.

TGM Tire Testing Tool.

How do we verify what we have in the software?
A lot of theoretical work and testing is required using our tools before anything is driven. When we reach that stage, and all the data is plugged into pMotor engine, other tools can be employed, in what is more of a verification stage than anything else. Methods such as video overlay, telemetry and driver feedback are used to further refine the vehicle. It is at this point where any discrepancies should become clear and the causes investigated.

Just an FYI, this was released a while back, we just re-posted it for any newcomers. But thanks for sharing, Montoya.

Silvio

CLAP CLAP CLAP

Anonymous

Very appreciated! Thanks!

Anonymous

LOL – behind the scenes at ISI: get data, feed it into model, not worry about how the car actually drives, or how cars drive in real life, say how perfect the tyre model is, copy and paste to all other cars and change parameters. Computer says its right, so it must be right!

Kunos method behind the scenes: get data, feed it into model, realise that no tyre data or model is ever correct, adjust model to reflect how a real car drives, go drive the cars themselves so they know what a race car feels like, place office above an actual race track for lots of driver feedback.

The Dark

total guesswork on your part. yr saying Kunos feed in the correct info then fudges the numbers to make it work right. that is not any better or worse then whatever ISI do? what matters is the end result. if you dont agree well its something else for you to LOL at.

Tim Wheatley

He’s actually saying that ISI don’t do something that the final paragraphs of the article says we do. That’s why you should just be amused and move on.

Anonymous

Pointless hate post. Why don’t you spend some time and appreciate the effort that ISI put into their physics modelling, rather than stomping in here and claiming that another company entirely is better for some vague, speculative reason?

Anonymous

i explained perfectly clearly why i dont appreciate the ‘effort’ ISI put into their physics modelling…..
it is all for nothing if the end product doesnt actually work. Which it doesnt.
its not vague or speculative either…….this news item speaks through what ISI do. Kunos approach is entirely different – go google some interviews with them talking about it.

i describe both approaches and how different they are – its not speculative in the slightest. which part is wrong? you didn’t say……

its very clear that the ISI team are programmers first and foremost, who are clueless about what cars are like to drive – this IS speculative but i doubt very much that any of them have driven a race car of any kind.

they play the game with damping on the wheel, for goodness sake.

Realkman666

I’m not impressed by how rude and arrogant you are, but I’ve also always felt that “real-world data” doesn’t produce realism in the context of simulation software. It must be useful for making cars in relation to each other, but not as a basis for physics.

GamerMuscle

This is the thing , I think its nice for marketing to say

“we copied x car and had XYZ data and have access to x tire data”

But in the end its how the data is used that’s important not the raw aspect of having the data.

Thats not to dispute the value of having the data though its obviously a key component just not the be all and end all.

Tim Wheatley

But… But… The marketing people said so… 🙂

GamerMuscle

I don’t understand your comment.

Tim Wheatley

That at the end of the day, the product is the product. The cars will drive how they are developed to drive. Nothing on that article is going to tell you how a sim feels, it just tells you what we do. And no matter what a marketing strategy might be, it says nothing about the software or the sim, except it might be an indicator of how much money the dev has.

GamerMuscle

I agree , I was just drawing attention to what marketing departments tend to do 🙂 , I didn’t understand your quip.

Obviously people should just download the game/demo and try things out for themselves and not base things on marketing.

It was just an observation that it seems to be a trend amongst most the driving games simcade or pure sim to say they have X Y Z real data with the implication that that on its own some how adds validity to the simulator.

Tim Wheatley

It adds validity only to the process of creation, you’re right. It doesn’t necessarily add validity to what is actually created. That’s down to the developer.

Noel Hibbard

“this IS speculative but i doubt very much that any of them have driven a race car of any kind.”

Your speculation is incorrect.

Joe Martin

Your insulting and arrogant attitude doesn’t seem to be justified by your actual remarks.
-First, neither of these are finished products, but you seem to act like they have been on your shelf in finished condition for years.

-Second: Feelings and Reality are often at odds with one another. When I hear someone saying “Simulation” I expect just that; a recreation of the numbers of real world values as accurately as they can get, not something that “feels” like – I – want it to feel. That is for the Sim-cade titles (i like those too), not for true simulations. If a real driver can’t expect the numbers to be as close to real life as possible, then how can they use the software as a training tool with reasonable expectation of carrying that training to the track?

What YOU seem to want, is a game that handles just the way you WANT it to handle, but getting what you want is not the same as recreating reality. All the while, you insult any product that doesn’t handle just the way you WANT it to handle. Only the trackside engineers are going to know how close the simulated models are to real life, and I doubt they will share their own teams sensitive telemetry data just to say “my favorite sim is closer to reality than yours is”.

And once again, neither of these are finished products, so lets save the final physics reviews until after launch day.

Tim Wheatley

But… *ahem” what you explained is different to what the final paragraphs of the article actually say.

C4

“its very clear that the ISI team are programmers first and foremost”
Maybe at least some truth to that, I think we need more skilled engineers in sim development and modding, who know both about the programming and the driving part, and the theory and practice behind it. There is sometimes a too large diversion by how programmers and artists think things should be handled, but that’s saying in general about software development.

It’s good to be skeptical about their methods and question things, but I can’t agree with your conclusion.

What do you currently have a positive for in the sim world? Not flaming here just curious.
What sim do you prefer to run and what gear do you use, or would like to use.

Anonymous

LOL – How can you take him seriously? He’s almost become a parody of himself. Every post he makes is more ridiculous/useless than the last. Some people just need attention I guess…

Sam Smith

Thought it might be good to see some positive words about something.
Even just the blue sky out the window 🙂

Tim Wheatley

Yeah, starting to feel amused.

wajdi nujeidat

hi Stefano Casillo!

Andrea Candini

Once again you just prove how stupid you are, considering that Stefano and everybody in Kunos has the maximum respect for every developer and talk to each other without any problems. Shame on you.

Anonymous

Yeah the developers respect each other while the fanboys quarrels.. strange ;p

Alex White

This annoys me as well. Yeah, you can have a favourite game to play, but i don’t see why people have to start spouting garbage over other companies. They are making the games we all want to play.

Pvt Stash

There is an example of the ” one eye’d ” approach here where I live in the v8 series. When it used to be an exclusive two make series, people used to belt the crap out of each other over which manufacturer was better. How ridiculous can you get? Seems to be a human nature thing and basically the same as the which sim is best question. Some people get rather excited over it and others couldn’t give a toss. I like all sims, variety is the spice of life so it is said. Enjoy your racing everyone. 🙂

Alex White

Yeah, I agree. Sometimes the sim community feels like a group of 5 year olds in a shouting match. “MY SIM IS BETTER THAN YOURS THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG”

Also, I cannot wait for the laser scanned Bathurst with the V8 in iRacing. Going to be awesome fun!

Tim Wheatley

Indeed strange.

wajdi nujeidat

Thanks for the “stupid”!

Tim Wheatley

That’s far more offensive than the comment you’re replying to.

wajdi nujeidat

Tim, you don’t know something that I personally know!

Tim Wheatley

Honestly, it’s not worthwhile to say that, even if it were true. Nobody will believe, and all it does is takes attention away from where everyone can accept, to somewhere they can’t.

It only makes you look bad. Without you saying that, I frankly now just find his comments amusing because of their absurdity. I don’t think he is truly damaging in the slightest, because he’s so extreme that you can’t take him seriously. Especially when his points aren’t even validated by the things he’s talking about.

WaitingForAC

Stefano does all his talking with the TP and NKP

Anonymous

I hope you will never meet a buyer of your work like yourself.

Tim Wheatley

I’m guessing the bit where it says we do what you say we don’t, doesn’t matter, because you didn’t read it:

“A lot of theoretical work and testing is required using our tools before anything is driven. When we reach that stage, and all the data is plugged into pMotor engine, other tools can be employed, in what is more of a verification stage than anything else. Methods such as video overlay, telemetry and driver feedback are used to further refine the vehicle. It is at this point where any discrepancies should become clear and the causes investigated.”

That paragraph completely contradicts your interpretation. We clearly state that we use the computer first, then we verify, using methods that include driver feedback.

However, I am more amused by your comments than anything. In fact if you’re anything like the real Pastor Ted, you probably love ISI deeply, and are struggling to accept it. That’s why you denounce everything about it so much. Time for a man hug? Come on, it’s ok, you know you want to. 😉

Clutch Norris

It’s getting hot here!

Anonymous

alright then – why does Kunos’ intepretation of how cars drive end up being completely different to ISI’s?

i take it youve played netkar pro and the technical preview demo. Lets forget even the TP, because it was only 1 car – take netkar pro. The cars in that drive in a fundamentally different manner to the way the cars drive in gmotor ISI games.

why? if your methods of modelling the cars is similar, why aren’t the outcomes similar? you are 2 groups both trying to make the most accurate representation of how a car drives – yet come out with 2 entirely different concepts.

why? you have to accept that 1 of you has to be more right than the other. At least if you acknowledge that fact, its a start. Of course you can’t, as you work for ISI, but still.

Tim Wheatley

In reading the article, you would see this answer as to why the same car can feel different in different sims, even when the same source data is used:

“The goal of a simulation is to simulate the real world as accurately as possible, our in-house tools help us check the data we are given is correct, and is how we plug any gaps in that data. We can run full physics simulations, and this allows us to complete both the most complex and simplistic tests we need to, all within real-world constraints.

In some cases the computations from our tools are too complicated to be run in real time on current home technology, but the attributes of vehicle dynamics are now fairly well understood, and anything that has a significant real world bearing must be simulated in some manner, even if it is using a simplified model (creating the same results) within retail software. As we go forward, and technology advances, those simplified models can become more and more advanced, and therein lies the benefit of ongoing software development over boxed products.”

It is in the creation of simplified models to simulate complex models, that developer interpretation and differences would come into play, and why the same car can feel different in different sims (along with a hundred other reasons with the engine and how it manages everything connected to that model).

And I’m not above saying that a developer can get things better or worse than another developer. I think it would be insulting to other developers to suggest otherwise. You’ll notice it doesn’t tend to be developers posting about how wrong other devs are, because they all know that they’ve all had to make compromises and interpret models themselves.

Anonymous

yeh you just dont seem to understand my point…at all.

“In reading the article, you would see this answer as to why the same car can feel different in different sims, even when the same source data is used”

im not looking for the answer, i know the answer, and made that very clear in my posts. Kunos has said in past interviews, they will fudge it if they have to, to get the car to handle to how they think it should handle.

they end up with a completely different concept of how the cars behave at grip limits, compared to you and the ISI team. so i refer you back….to what i said.

Most of your post has got nothing to do with what i said so i wont even bother quoting it, but at the end you say

“You’ll notice it doesn’t tend to be developers posting about how wrong other devs are, because they all know that they’ve all had to make compromises and interpret models themselves.”

again…..at no point have i said anything that implies that Kunos themselves think their concept for delivering a simulation is better.

All ive said is – there is a yardstick to measure how good the simulation is – its called reality. We can visually see how cars behave at different levels of grip, how cars skid, how cars are controlled, as well as our own experiences of driving race cars (and again, i ask, has Anyone in the ISI team driven an actual race car?).

If we use this yardstick as the baseline (reality), and compare that to the driving experiences delivered by simulations like yours (ISI) and Kunos, the way the cars behave are fundamentally different – data or no data, its irrelevant – what matters is the output.

So you have choice. You either think that ISI’s approach delivers a more realistic output, or Kunos’ does. Its as simple as that. The fundamental behaviour of the cars in all the ISI simulations are simply not up to scratch, and you’ll notice that the good mods, and GSC, do their very best to make the cars as driveable as the gmotor engine allows. Basically……they try and make it as much like a Kunos game as possible.

I just dont get the impression that any of the ISI team know how cars feel at the limit. I even read on the ISI forum that someone in the dev team plays the game with damping on, for goodness sake.

Tim Wheatley

Just answering your question: Yes.

Everything else, frankly, it’s a statement, not a conversation.

Anyway, have an enjoyable weekend. I might reply again early next week, but probably not as I don’t think it’s showing to be worthwhile, the line is clearly drawn.

Anonymous

I see a lot of modders take what you guys do and improve on it. They have done great things to increase how cars feel behind the wheel in comparison to a good percentage of what ISI has delivered in the past. I think very highly of you guys but I think modders have done better on occasion to get that feeling behind the wheel the bigger percentages prefer. It’s a page from rF1. How many people fire that game up and jump into an original piece of content. We all run mod cars FTMP.

Tim Wheatley

I can’t really comment on rF1 or how things were done, I don’t know, except that most of the stock content in rF1 was actually made by modders, so I’m a bit confused as to how it relates in any way to rF2 or the people making content for us now.

Anonymous

When the modding community starts to tweak your tread compounds we shall see and of course my words come down to personal opinion and preference. So at least for me I still think your tire models needs some work.

Tim Wheatley

Ah ok. As you said you’d seen it, I was curious in what. I’m still a bit confused by the rF1 comments in relation to rF2 or this article, because IMHO they don’t relate? rF1 was a platform for mods, and basically that’s all. rF2 has some established content of it’s own that I have yet to see be really altered by modders in any way, even though we released all the tire compounds for them to use and they certainly could. Every issue I see people saying they have with tires are ones related to real types of wear and driving style problems.

I’m not offended or badgering, etc, just trying to understand obviously if there’s an area with an issue. And as yet I don’t understand how this relates. If you do want to discuss with me any problems you can always email me:[email protected] and I can pass concerns on.

Anonymous

Hmmm that seems fair enough and I may very well take you up on your offer. As I said I do and always have thought very highly of ISI and have made it clear that I started Sim Racing with NT 2003 PC before making NT 2004 PC my only sim of choice for 3-4 years and while I may be at risk of being down voted for this I thought it was much better than NR2K3 in many ways. Then I moved on to Ian’s SimBin titles and then on to rF1. So with respects to you guys I will not continue this here.

GamerMuscle

Its strange how all the companies claim to put real car data and real tire model data into there simulations , yet they all drive so utterly different from each other.

Even within the context of RF1 its weird that Reiza produced far more realistic handling cars than any of the ISI cars and in many regards GSC cars handle in what looks like a far more reflective of reality way than the cars in RF2.

It would seem that ISI are missing fundamental data for how cars handle over and on the limit.

I am of the understanding that even tire manufactures themselves find it hard to get data or build models for extreme situations and most focus on getting data for when tires are likely to brake , how they dispel water or how they ware rather than subtleties in how tires handle on the limit.

Real world tire manufacturers can always produce a bunch of tires with slight changes and then test them on real cars to get real world feedback and test how a real car handles with them rather than try and do it in a simulation.

It seems people at Reiza and Kunos and some mod teams have an intuitive sense or actual experience of cars to know what’s missing and they then implement the cars until they are right despite maybe not having the raw data.

In the end maybe no one has very complete data for how tires or cars handle on the limit and that last 5% of what makes a car fun to drive falls down to the artistry of the developers.

Non the less its incredible the intellect that’s poured into these simulators I’m sure if I tried to program a tire model I’d end up with something approximating a wheel barrow with brick wheels on an ice rink.

Anonymous

sounds like the formula masters car

Pablo Coronel

Is not strange, they put all the data, then they interpret in its own way, the same how you claim that Reiza produced far more realistic handling cars, its your interpretation.

GamerMuscle

Are you making the claim that the cars in Reiza drive worse than the cars in RF2 ?

Are you saying that the data is not important as its all an interpretation anyway ?

It would seem that the interpretation is as important or in some ways more important than the data itself , given how different each simulator drives.

everyone has their own interpretation……..but we have a yardstick to measure how accurate these sims are – its called reality.

therefore you can objectively say which one is more realistic.

Anonymous

I believe that Tim said that once all tech data is in place refinements are made as a deviation due to the fact simulating real life solely from technical data is not a 100% exact science.

Pablo Coronel

Yes, a yardstick called reality, again, that “reality” also have a personal interpretation.

For me, after try all, yes all, available market sims, more accuratte IMO, in a rank : RF2, RF1, NKpro, GTR2.
BUT, everyone has that side slip glitch, execp NKPro.

Noel Hibbard

Correct me if I am wrong but hasn’t Neils’ philosophy on car physics always been more on feel than all out real life numbers? His cars are hands down the best and most realistic feeling cars in rF1. I personally could care less if the numbers are 100% accurate if the results are accurate. I don’t even get hung up on laptimes and crap like that either. If the car reacts and feels like a real car then I am happy. I am not trying to pretend I am an FIA GT pilot. I just want to race with a field of other drivers in similarly performing cars and see who has the most talent. Racing is what it is all about. Not trying to pretend we are real life drivers or try to compare our laptimes to real life in an attempt to claim we have as much talent as the real drivers. You will never be able to fully compare real to virtual. That’s my take anyways.

Clutch Norris

Afaik it’s the opposite, Niels doesn’t like fudged/tweaked data and try to use as much real data as possible.

Niels Heusinkveld

Its kinda a bit like both Noel and Clutch Norris (I like that name) say.. The method is very umm methodic, and anti fudge. Real data of one car or one tire can be meaningless but once you’ve seen a good variety of different car / tire data, you can get certain trends.

Often you can’t use tire data 1:1, but the somewhat subjective tweaking isn’t random, its based on a database of real data and years of experience. I try to be able to explain what I do rather than just doing something and feeling if its good or not.

Tim Wheatley

The article states the probably reason for this. Home PCs can’t run real physics, and probably never will. What developers have to do, is ascertain the traits of a car, a tire, whatever they are working on, and ‘simplify’ the physics.

This bit:
“The goal of a simulation is to simulate the real world as accurately as possible, our in-house tools help us check the data we are given is correct, and is how we plug any gaps in that data. We can run full physics simulations, and this allows us to complete both the most complex and simplistic tests we need to, all within real-world constraints.

In some cases the computations from our tools are too complicated to be run in real time on current home technology, but the attributes of vehicle dynamics are now fairly well understood, and anything that has a significant real world bearing must be simulated in some manner, even if it is using a simplified model (creating the same results) within retail software. As we go forward, and technology advances, those simplified models can become more and more advanced, and therein lies the benefit of ongoing software development over boxed products.”

Anonymous

No doubt every Sim racer would like to believe the physics engine is so good, that all they got to do is type in the real world numbers and out pops a perfect simulation of reality. And no doubt this is a good marketing ploy. But I think it would be just as good, and probably even better. To just match your physics game performance against a real cars. Like, laps times, how many Gs on the skid pad. Breaking distance and zero to 60 times. How many laps they last in a race. How a real equivalent car feels in comparison. And finally my favorite. How do videos, (and there are thousands) of real cars compare. Do they act the same on the track?
I’ll always take the later data as proof of the pudding. (How does it taste.) Over a list of ingredients. And a disclaimer stating. “It must taste good because of the ingredients”.

Tim Wheatley

You’re essentially saying to skip to the verification stage. How exactly do you assume to get to this stage? You HAVE to do it roughly the way it’s done. You can’t drive a brick. It needs the wheels. It needs the suspension. It needs an engine. The simplistic nature of what you;re suggesting is, frankly, impossible. 🙂 The data for the physics *is* the car.

ISI didn’t post this here, we put it on our Facebook, our Twitter, it wasn’t sent out to anyone on our media list, and it’s about how we do things. Marketing ploy? It doesn’t say anything about how good or bad the result is compared to everyone else, it’s informational. It was posted on our social media with the words: “How do we acquire and use car data? (Re-post for those who may not have seen it).” and it’s actually a re-post. No need to be cynical about such things. lol

Anonymous

It’s talking about tire data, is it not? Not horsepower, car weight, etc. Why be so easily offended? We’re all only human. I’m just reminding everyone about marketing hype. LOVE DUDE.

Tim Wheatley

No, apart from the picture of the tire used by Montoya for the frontpage and header, the article is about the technical information and physics of the car as a whole. There is a very small section on tires within the article:

“The most difficult data to acquire, is tire data. Many teams work under a non-disclosure agreement with tire manufacturers, and this means we occasionally have to purchase and test tires ourselves. We also use our own tools to verify any information we are given, or test various scenarios to build our own data.”

Not in the least bit offended. It was just a reply, as was mine, to just point out the source. 🙂

Anonymous

Well, I was talking about tire data. Mainly because it’s the headliner picture. And I thought that was self evident in my original post; that I was speaking of the tires. Of coarse data about the rest of the car is necessary. Have a good night.

Mrslfrsl

After reading some comments in the past and on this post I just thought…….
“hmm, funny thing it is, no matter which sim fanboy corner the people come from, they always try to compare their ONE and ONLY beloved sim with rF2’s physics. Why is that?”
😉

Tim Wheatley

42.

Pvt Stash

The answer to everything… 🙂

Niels Heusinkveld

And life and the universe!

nothke

But what’s the question?!?!?

Pvt Stash

They built a super-computer to work that one out but unfortunately it was blown up just before we got to find out. 🙂

StarFoxySxv550

Tim W said “Home PCs can’t run real physics, and probably never will”

Aww, just came here to ask if this was coming any time in the future. I guess the more time that goes on the better the simulation or simulation will get, and some less power-costly aspects will be directly simulated, I hope.

I suppose it’s a bit much ask, a home pc to simulate every single bearing in the suspension and drivetrain individually, along with a fully detailed 3D cad model running under hi-res differential and gearbox textures for 50 cars in a fully modelled world, without even getting into chassis flex and environmental effects.

Tim Wheatley

Well… Actually rF2 development is moving towards chassis flex in the new constraint system being worked on, but yes, the majority of the tiny variables of the “world” can never, ever, be simulated. I am sure of that much. 🙂

It will get better and better though, as computers evolve and power increases, it gives more and more options to the devs – in every sim – and I think as sim racers that’s something we can all feel good about.

StarFoxySxv550

Great news. Thanks.

Anonymous

Sum of comments on this page: Sims have their strengths and weaknesses and are evolving all the time. Then there was a fistfight over who’s daddy was stronger.

Jshort

I’m simply amazed at how many people that comment and haven’t read the article. Trolls are getting lazy these days.

Pvt Stash

Trolls are naturally lazy dude, they spend their time lying around under bridges waiting for us to walk over them. Then they jump out, make a whole lot of pointless noise and fuss and then go back to lurking. Odd creatures really, spend all the time in the dark yet have opinions on everything it seems. 😉

nothke

Isn’t this like.. Really old news? From the time the first beta was released?